US Senate approves Iraq troop withdrawal deadline

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Devil_Dog, Mar 27, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    As Dubya is rapidly finding out, even a rubberstamp (like the last congress that was running the show) can run out of ink.

    This bill will never become law. However, let the record show that the people spoke but he refused to listen.
  2. This is a representative democracy, the "people" vote for the representatives and the representatives inturn write bills and vote to enact the bills in to law, and not always in accordance with the will of the "people" mind you.

    Finally there is the President that has the ability to VETO bills which can be overriden by a super majority of both houses and forced into law, he can sign them into law, not act and they become law, or VETO and no super majority vote in both houses and they die.

    Have a copy of School House Rock you should watch.

    So what people have spoken? Right the elected representatives, we the people stopped speaking after the last election and won't be heard again until the next. And once the ballots are casted in that one we are ignored again for 2 years, unless of course it aids in a reelection effort.

    -----sorry forgot to mention-----
    The House is elected by the people in specific state wide district races, and the representatives run on national but mostly district level issues, basically promising to bring home some bacon.

    The Senate, of which there are 2 Senetors from each State, are elected by the people of the whole State. They campaign on national issues but mostly on issues that will bring projects, and tax dollars back into the State they represent.

    The President is elected, electorial college and all but that is for a later discussion, by the majority of the people living in all the States in the Union, runs a national campaing on national issues to carter to the majority of voters from all districts and states.

    So although the Congress may want to enact law and vote on a bill then call it the will of the people is absurd, seeing that they are individuals cobbeled together for different reasons. On the otherhand when the whole of the people, of all States in the Union by majority vote, elect a single person as President, that by the Constitution is vested with the power to reject by VETO the bills of the Congress, is not considered the will of the people is just as absurd. Especially when Congress is then inturn required by a super majority vote to prove that they truely represent the "will of the people".

    So when Congress overrides the VETO of this bill, then and only then will I conceed that it was the "will of the people!"

    Really fcuking amazing what those old wig wearing dudes came up with!
  3. Are the Senate thick as feck? How can a timeline possibly be put on this?

    It just appears to be a politically backhanded way of undermining the current administration.
  4. ding ding ding ding ding....ladies and gentlepersons we have winner.

    Sir, step right up and claim your brand new RONCO Bamboo Steamer!

    Next question for what is behind door number 1 is; this all denotes the earliest what in US Politcal History?

    I'll give you a hint it's not period. Although some would contend we are returning to the dark ages....sit down Pat noone wants a sermun right now.

    can ya can ya???????
  5. The quickest way to end a war is to lose it. Apparently.
  6. But you are wrong the majority in the House and Senate consider this a structured redeployment. The US doesn't lose, according to the yea votes, it just deploys the combat forces stratigically, mind you, to locations other then Iraq.

    No really it's not losing and it's not a's ah.....sorry can't keep a straight face carry on will be back after I stop laughing......
  7. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    A good quote.:

    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.

    H. L. Mencken
  8. You see, if you colonials had stayed Loyal you would have had a party in power and one, or more, parties "in Loyal Opposition."
    It seems to me that the D party ishoping for defeat in Iraq to prove partisan points. Traitors?
  9. Would also be a reason they are so soundly behind undermining the 2nd Admendment me thinks ;-) After all we do have a history of armed revolution :D
  10. Recently?
  11. So, if me thinks right, the powers that be in Congress and the Senate, want the US to be Slaves to your enemies. You remember them? they destroyed the WTC
  12. Define "Recently" please...

    One could surmise as much, please see my original response on this thread as to how smart the old dead dudes were ;-)

    I do as well as most others, some I know don't, and those that seem to think this vote was the people's voice are delusional. Fact of the matter is that both the house and senate (lower case intended) by a ooooooooo so slim a margin passed the bill(s) and only after stuffing both versions so full of pork to pay off those that voted for it.
  13. Shithouse,

    The whole purpose of the "pork" was -- together with the deadline-- meant to make the president veto the bill and therefore veto himself out of money to finance his Iraq adventure which has gone terribly wrong.

    However, Karl Rove -- being the wily b.astard that he is-- will use this bill to blame the Democrats for the inevitable "unvictory" that Iraq is eventually going to be.

    They will say: " See, things were going so well over there until the Democrats retook congress. Then they cut off the funds to our troops because they are unpatriotic and that is why we did not win."

    It is a sinking boat and the Republicans know it.

    If they didn't, they would have filibustered the bill. Why did they not? Because they don't want to expend all their political capital before '08. By leaving the problem solely to Bush, they are basically abandoning him, without saying so aloud.
  14. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    I thought this person summed it up pretty good in the attached video! It's from a conservitive source; however, makes some good points IMHO.

    To Our Americans Serving in Iraq
  15. So let me understand this logic; the dems jump up and down during the last election saying they support the troops, laden the bill with $24B in pork, attach a timeline and this all in an effort to withhold funding from the troops by forcing Bush to veto it....???? All the while the bill was intended to equip and maintain the troops, the dems taut to support.....???? Sorry my two year old is laughing over that logic.

    Ah yes that is excellent support :roll: Sounds more like politics on the backs of our men and women in the armed forces, which sorry I don't see as support.

    Ah yes I see....well not really but after all Rowe is the evil one even evaded prosecution on "Plamegate", truely a devious guy...must watch him closely thanks for the heads up Deputy_Dumbass

    Will stand by for that message, should I wear my tinfoil hat or the new press & seal one?

    Add the same troops they campaigned so hard on supporting.

    Mitch was quite clear why they didn't filibuster. Bush was going to veto it, there is not a chance in hell to override the veto in either house and if they don't pass a supplemental then the Congress will be to blame, which is currently a dem majority.